Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 07/12/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 12, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Torrey announced that Ms. Solomon would not be present for the work session. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Kelly requested follow-up on request for the results of the Eugene area neighborhood analysis being conducted by Beth Bridges of the Planning and Development Department. Ms. Taylor clarified her information request related to pervious driveway surfaces, and whether the Permit and Information Services Division proactively notified citizens of the possibility such surfaces could be installed when they sought a building permit. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about Qwest's attempt to refer a challenge to the City's two- percent telecommunications tax to the voters, City Manager Dennis Taylor said the City Council would receive a fact sheet in the next packet providing them with accurate information on the tax. He said that the City was precluded from becoming involved in advocacy for or against ballot measures. Ms. Taylor said the City needed to inform people that the tax had been in effect for a long time and about its purposes. Ms. Taylor said she received many calls from constituents regarding recent incidents of tree removal in the community, and reiterated her previously expressed conviction that the City needed stronger tree protections. She hoped the council took up the issue sometime soon. Ms. Taylor said that she received a complaint that the City failed to maintain the trees they had planted on Oak Street. The person asked if the City was obliged to maintain the trees, and was also concerned about people breaking off branches from the trees. Ms. Taylor said she received also a complaint from a constituent who had been put on hold when she called the City and never received an answer to her inquiry. She thought it important residents receive an answer to their inquiries whether they call the correct department or not. Ms. Taylor suggested that if staff had to MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 1 Work Session redirect a telephone call to another department, they take the responsibility of calling the citizen back to ensure the individual making the inquiry received an answer. Ms. Bettman alerted the council that at its last meeting, the Police Commission decided its work program item related to the complaint process was so important members were willing to commit whatever time it took to have a recommendation by September 2005. She anticipated more frequent and longer meetings, and said it was possible the council would receive a contingency fund request for more staffing. Referring to a recent article in The Register-Guard, which suggested the possibility the City would go to the taxpayers for money to underwrite the costs of judgments reached against it, Ms. Bettman expressed dismay about the idea. She believed the council needed to ensure there was accountability and oversight in the organization, and she felt to achieve that, the council needed to revisit the issue of referring the question of an independent external auditor to the voters. She said she intended to request a work session on the topic and hoped one could be held on July 28. Ms. Bettman said that if the council had to go to the taxpayers to seek money to underwrite the cost of judgments, it was important to assure the voters there would be a level of oversight in the future that would avoid such situations. Mr. Poling had no items. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Pap6 suggested the council discuss how the organization handled risk management from a policy standpoint. He advocated for a work session on that topic. Mr. Pap6 thanked Mr. Taylor for the information he had provided to the council regarding the costs incurred by the City for the acquisition of the Chiquita and AutoCraft sites. He hoped the City was able to recover its investments in those sites soon. Mr. Pap6 was happy to see that construction activity had commenced on the portion of the Chiquita site that had been purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA). Mr. Taylor reported that the GSA was working on its construction headquarters and on staging agreements with the City. Work would begin in earnest soon. Mr. Pap6 said he received several complaints from constituents in his ward that, as a result of new fence standards adopted in the Land Use Code update, they were being contacted by the City and required to lower their back and side yard fences when located on a street frontage and to set them back from the road. In some cases, those residents had purchased their properties with the fences already installed. Mr. Pap6 called for council review of those standards. Ms. Nathanson said that the problem cited by Mr. Pap6 was an example of an oversight in the Land Use Code. The code failed to distinguish between comer lots and other lots. She said City staff was aware of the problem. Ms. Nathanson said the purpose of the standard was to avoid continuous walls along a street, but by definition, if one yard on a street was a side yard and the other yards were front yards, there could be a single parcel with a fence. She did not know if the City was going to able to address that housekeeping change soon, although it seemed small and fixable to her. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said the telecommunications fee was merely the cost of companies doing business in Eugene and she wanted to update the information on the tax that was reviewed by the Council Committee on Telecommunications some years back. She said the information indicated that Eugene's fees were not out of line with other jurisdictions nor was its fee higher than typical. Eugene's fees were about average among those charged. Ms. Nathanson requested assistance with a constituent complaint regarding the roundabouts on Terry Street, where cars were leaving the road and going onto private property. Public Works staff had indicated that there was insufficient time to gauge the success of such roundabouts, but if the City had information about two accidents already, she suggested there were other incidents the City had not heard about. She requested follow-up outside the response that there was nothing to be done. Mr. Taylor said the City was working on a solution, which might involve the removal of the roundabout in question. Mr. Taylor said that the article in The Register-Guard regarding what direction the City might take in regard to paying for the costs of judgments not yet arrived at was very speculative. Staff had not proposed such a remedy at this time. He said that staff would continue to keep the council apprized of the progress of litigation. Mr. Taylor endorsed the work session proposed by Mr. Pap& Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the information on the telecommunications fee provided to the council by Franchise Manager Pam Berrian and suggested the information needed to be shared with the public more than with the council. He asked the manager what options the council had for informing the public about the origin of the fee, what other communities had done, and how Eugene compared to those other communities. Mr. Kelly requested follow-up on a statement in a recent article in The Register-Guard indicating that there was no money for art in the new police forensics building. Mayor Torrey noted his participation in the official opening of the Sheldon Village affordable housing project, which he termed a wonderful project. He noted that the project was initially opposed by the neighbors, but he had yet to receive a complaint about it. Mayor Torrey said his major concern with the fence issue was that the City appeared to treat residents differently. Some residents in his area living on comer lots were told to take their fences down, while others on comer lots with similar fences were not contacted at all. Mayor Torrey determined there was sufficient council support to hold a work session on the question of referring an external auditor to the voters on July 28. Referring to a recent Cal Young Neighborhood newsletter, Mayor Torrey objected to allowing City newsletters to become the voice of a single individual. He asked what regulations governed what was included in such newsletters. He asked who elected people in such organizations, and the residency requirements. Mr. Taylor indicated he would follow-up. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Policy and Procedures to Name City-Owned Facilities Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office joined the council for the item. She said the item was a brief review of the City's policies regarding the renaming of City facilities and amenities, followed by council discussion of whether to refine those policies. She said the City lacked a single procedure or guideline regarding the naming of facilities. Most City facilities were named for their geographic location, such as Amazon Community Center. Other facilities were named after people, such as Celeste Campbell Senior Center, or for themes, such as the States Ball Park. Ms. Walston noted that the Library Division of the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and the Parks and Open Space Division of the Public Works Department both had policies and procedures in place for naming facilities and amenities in association with a monetary gift and termed that ~naming in recognition." She cited the Hult Center and Jacobs Gallery as examples. It was less clear how facilities should be named in the absence of a monetary gift, which she termed ~naming in commemoration." She cited the Knickerbocker Bridge as an example. Ms. Walston suggested that the council focus its energies on naming in commemoration. Ms. Walston called the council's attention to the materials prepared for the item, which contained examples of the policies used by other cities. She briefly reviewed some of those policies. Ms. Walston recommended that the council direct staff to return with a draft policy in 90 days. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Walston said the City's policies related to naming in recognition had no dollar threshold related to the total cost of a facility. Ms. Taylor thought the amount involved should be sizable, such as the third of the cost of a facility. Ms. Taylor believed a person ought to be deceased or at least out of office to be honored by having a facility named after them. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the staff work. He asked staff to review what Eugene had done in terms of naming City facilities after people in the past 15 years, and for what reasons. He noted that the naming opportunities in the library were based on the donor paying the actual cost of the item or amenity to which the name was assigned. Mr. Meisner recalled that seven years ago, the council had directed that the 3rd/4th Connector be renamed and that had not occurred, and he questioned what use establishing a policy was if the council's direction was not to be implemented. Mr. Kelly said that naming a facility in someone's honor could provide very important individual recognition and could be controversial as well. He thought there was value in having a formal, written policy. Referring to Mr. Meisner's information request, Mr. Kelly said he would be interested in the information but he did not feel bound by what happened in the past in light of the lack of a written policy, and did not think the council needed to revisit already-named facilities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the staff materials. He felt most comfortable with the policies of Santa Monica as a model for proceeding. Mr. Kelly noted Ms. Walston's suggestion for an ad hoc committee as the public participation element of a City process, and said he preferred not to create a new committee. He noted that in Santa Monica, staff studied such proposals and referred them to a standing committee related to the service area in question, if appropriate. Then the proposal was forwarded to the council, and a public input opportunity occurred at that time. Mr. Kelly thought some of the naming proposals the City Council would consider would be very routine while others would be high profile, but he believed the vast majority of the proposals could be addressed by the council on a Consent Calendar. Mr. Kelly requested a written policy of never naming a facility for a business. Mr. Pap6 agreed with many of Mr. Kelly's remarks. He also liked the Santa Monica policy as well as the Honolulu model. He wanted a process that was consistent and could be applied to all situations. Mr. Pap6 believed it appropriate to name facilities for living people who had left office. He thought a process that involved community input was needed. Mr. Poling appreciated the distinction between naming in commemoration and naming in recognition. He also liked the Santa Monica policy, although he thought it needed tweaking. Mr. Poling wanted to have something in place that the City could apply to each situation, regardless of the facility or the group making the proposal. Ms. Bettman agreed with the staff recommendation that a policy related to the naming of City facilities be established. She wanted to see two policies established, one regarding naming in commemoration and one regarding to naming in recognition. She also wanted criteria to be established for naming in recognition, and endorsed Ms. Taylor's suggestion for a dollar threshold for naming in commemoration. Ms. Bettman called for a neutral policy that could not be used for political expediency. Ms. Taylor thought there should be a distinction between naming and renaming a facility. She thought there should be some compelling reason to rename something. Ms. Taylor suggested the renaming of City facilities be precluded except for the Amazon Headwaters, which could be named for the benefactor who purchased it and presented it to the City. Mr. Taylor liked the distinctions drawn by Ms. Walston and thought they should be clearly defined. He felt it important that the council give staff direction now to guide those who wished to propose names for City facilities in the future. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the need for monetary thresholds. He thought that would add to the consistency of the process. He said that the final decision on facility names should be the purview of the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Ms. Taylor regarding the need to distinguish between naming and renaming. He pointed out that the council was talking about out-of-the-ordinary naming opportunities. He wanted the policy to reflect that fact in some way. Mr. Kelly also agreed about the need to distinguish between facility naming and renaming. He thought there would be times when it was appropriate to rename facilities, but thought there should be a separate policy addressing that issue that included criteria or a clear explanation of why the facility was named as it was initially. Mr. Kelly thought there might be value in adding some guidelines for naming in recognition. He believed that past controversies had involved the naming of entire facilities rather than the naming of individual components of a structure, such as had occurred at the library. He cited the Hult Center as an example. Mr. Taylor suggested a possible fourth distinction to consider, that of a council-approved named gift. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to de- velop a naming and renaming policy for City-owned facilities. Ms. Taylor did not think such a policy would be employed very often. She advocated for renaming the University Park wading pool after Howard Bonnett, former Budget Committee member, in recognition of his work to keep the pool funded. Ms. Walston said she thought under current Parks and Open Space guidelines, this type of naming may not require City Council action. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion. He said such a policy would highlight the issue for the public. He frequently received questions from people about the origin of facility names such as neighbor- hood parks, and requested information on the process used to name neighborhood parks in regard to who made the decision and what opportunity existed for public input. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Taylor that the motion would not impact current fund-raising activities at the Hayes Garden. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). C. WORK SESSION Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendments The URA was joined for the item by Richie Weinman and Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Taylor reminded the council that Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) had reviewed the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan and proposed several amendments, which Mr. Weinman was present to discuss. Mr. Weinman recalled the City Council's initiation of a multi-step process to implement the vision for a Greater Downtown Eugene. As one of those steps, the council had formed the ERAC. He said the ERAC MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 6 Work Session reviewed the plan very carefully over the course of four meetings. The ERAC did not recommend a change in the district's indebtedness or boundary, but had recommended the life of the district be extended to 2029, with reviews in 2009 and 2019. Mr. Weinman reported that a public hearing on the item was scheduled for August 9, with action scheduled for September 13, 2004. Mr. Weinman responded to questions previously asked by Mr. Kelly. He confirmed the amendment process for this district plan would be the same as for the Riverfront Plan. He confirmed the district contained 70 acres. He said the shaded area shown on the map appeared to show Broadway was still closed to traffic, and he would attempt to correct the error. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly was happy to see the plan included language that gave the council authority over any projects costing $250,000 or more. He expressed concern about the expiration date recommended by the ERAC. He understood the desire to build up the increment, but wanted a reasonable time frame for returning the properties in the district to the tax rolls. He was reluctant to extend the district's life past 20 years. Mr. Weinman clarified that the current plan expired in 2009, and the ERAC's recommendation would extend the plan 20 years beyond that date. Mr. Kelly continued to be concerned about the length of time involved. Mr. Weinman said the ERAC discussed the issue at some length, and agreed the proposed expiration date gave the development community and the City more certainty. He said the expiration date was the council's purview. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Kelly's concerns about the expiration date. Referring to page 37 of the meeting packet, item 5, he expressed concern that the list of public space improvements did not appear to allow for the construction of facilities such as the improvements desired for the Parks Blocks to serve Saturday Market. He suggested the text preceding the list be revised to read ~Projects to be undertaken include, but are not limited to..." Mr. Weinman agreed. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 1300 of the plan, ~Duration and Validity of Approved Plan." She asked why staff proposed to strike the text in that section stipulating the need for a public hearing when the plan review occurred. Mr. Weinman explained that any changes proposed to the plan would require the passage of an ordinance, and that process included a requirement for a public hearing. Ms. Bettman suggested that the text be revised to reflect that fact. City Attorney Glenn Klein said if the council decided against amending the plan, it would not require a public hearing. He asked if the council wanted a public hearing for any review, regardless of the action it decided to take; if so, the text should be retained. Ms. Bettman thought a public hearing gave the public an opportunity to review the plan and determine how well it was working. She said she would advocate for its retention. Referring to page 96 of the meeting packet, Ms. Bettman requested an explanation of the amounts budgeted for ~assistance." Mr. Weinman indicated he would follow-up. Referring to page 90, Ms. Bettman asked why the City was using 1989 assessment data. Mr. Weinman indicated it was difficult to get the information and it required considerable staff time to do so. He said the issue came down to whether the information provided value to the council's decision-making process. Ms. Bettman thought it would be useful information. Staff was citing the value ratio as a means to support the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 7 Work Session economic conditions that exist, and she noted the considerable amount of construction that occurred since 1989 and said she would like to see the real numbers. Ms. Bettman noted that the council was talking about putting forward a library operations levy. While she acknowledged there were many projects in the plan that would be good for downtown, she pointed out that the money diverted by the district in 2004-2005 equaled $830,000 that, if left in the General Fund, could be used for library operations. Mr. Pap~ advocated for as many public hearings as possible in conjunction with urban renewal to get information to the public, given the controversial nature of the subject. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Weinman said boundary expansion could be considered after 2009 but the district was fairly small and could be expanded by only 20 percent (3-1/2 blocks). Ms. Taylor asked if the tax base remained the same if the district's life was extended. Mr. Weinman said yes. Ms. Taylor noted a statement in the staff materials that local government would receive the benefits from the improvements in the district when the district ended, but that would not happen if the district never ended. Ms. Taylor noted her continued opposition to urban renewal. She said the City should be clear about where the money for the district comes from, as it was her belief that it did not come from taxes assessed inside the district. Mr. Weinman clarified that only the properties inside the district paid the increment. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the issue was somewhat more complicated. With the grandfathered plan, there was a special levy for the downtown district that everyone in the community paid. In terms of general tax increment, there was no clear answer to the question, although staff had attempted to find one. He suggested that Financial Services Director Sue Cutsogeorge be asked to explain the issue in greater detail. Ms. Taylor wanted to have something to distribute at the public hearing that showed the cost of urban renewal, the source of the money, and what it could be used for otherwise. She did not think the City was ~quite open" with that information, asserting that if it was the public would be opposed to urban renewal. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the complexity of urban renewal. He said he also received questions about the levy line item that appeared on residents' tax bills and suggested that Ms. Cutsogeorge be prepared to address that question at the public hearing. Mr. Kelly referred to page 34 of the meeting packet and the points related to access and circulation, noting the first two bullets discussed improved transportation access into downtown while the fifth bullet, related to alternative modes, called for the continued provision of access for those use. He asked that the fifth bullet point be revised to call for improved access for alternative modes. Ms. Bettman said a past council had made a wise decision to dedicate the money in the downtown urban district to the construction of the new library. She reiterated that if the council ended the district, if would have $830,000 in fiscal year 2004-2005 and $870,000 in fiscal year 2005-2006 to help operate the library. She said it would be difficult to convince her that continuing the district was a good idea. Ms. Bettman noted the council's receipt of a memorandum from Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI), which advocated for urban renewal funding to redevelop buildings for new uses and increased density. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 8 Work Session the buildings to which DE1 referred were privately held properties. She asked if DE1 was recommending those property owners be given money to demolish those buildings or if it was recommending that the City purchase those buildings. Mr. Weinman was not sure of DEI's intent. He said that Eugene and other cities have, in the past, purchased such buildings using district funds or assisted private owners with financing loans. The district could also provide loans for interior and exterior improvements. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Weinman that no grants to private property owners were contemplated in the plan. Mr. Meisner requested additional information on expiration options, asking if the district must be in place a minimum or maximum number of years, and implications of a district that expired in five years, ten years, fifteen years, or twenty years. He asked if a five-year expiration date would be sufficient to pay off the library and accomplish some projects. Mr. Weinman said he would follow-up, although he noted that the district was in place until 2009 and, if ended before that, would probably place the City in default on its bonds. Mr. Pap6 requested information on all the projects that the downtown district supported. He also requested current information on the size of the tax base and on the increment retained by the district. Ms. Taylor asked staff to prepare a list of the buildings that were demolished downtown because of urban renewal, and the cost of installing and dismantling the pedestrian mall. Mr. Weinman said he would do what he could in terms of securing that information. Ms. Taylor recalled that the council decided to terminate the district in 2009 when it directed the district's revenues to the construction of the new library. She determined from Mr. Weinman that a future council could terminate the district at any time. The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 9 Work Session